Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
Showing Original Post only (View all)Misinformation, rumors and just plain nonsense mistakes [View all]
I'm not suggesting that TeenVogue is the place to go for news, politics and criminology information. But imagine that you've read this while in high school and that other equally misguided sources that you've heard or read agree with the some of the errors there. How long would it take for you to realize that the incorrect info was even wrong? Who would you trust to point that out?
My daughters read this publication and I'm sure it's popular today. I'm sure many teens are being misinformed here:
http://www.teenvogue.com/story/assault-rifles-ar-15-explained-orlando-shooting
"We have to make it harder for people who want to kill Americans to get their hands on weapons of war that let them kill dozens of innocents," President Barack Obama...
Neither AR-15s nor any similar styled rifles are military issue in any country. Using the phrase "weapons of war" is incorrect. Quoting that without explaining in what sense that phrase is used is misinformation.
"Assault rifles, like the popular AR-15, usually fire smaller bullets than handguns. But theyre capable of firing many more bullets without reloading, which makes them potentially more lethal."
The term "assault rifle" properly refers to a select fire rifle that is actually capable of firing multiple shots per trigger pull. I often read that gun-control proponents aren't interested in learning technical terminology or hearing knowledgeable folks point out their mistakes. Guns and gun-control necessarily involves technical info. The first step in making progress is accepting that. The second step is accepting that you may not have all the info you need to talk intelligently. The third is to actually learn.
"The system of background checks meant to keep guns out of the hands of people who might be dangerous is also notoriously flawed."
The system, like a chain, is only as strong as it's weakest link. It works the way it was designed to work. Most criticisms pointing out "loopholes" are talking about aspects of the system as it was design to work. Sales between private individuals were intended by the law mandating BGCs to be excluded no matter where they take place: gun show, parking lot or Burger King ladies room. The reason: regular folks are by law not allowed to access the NICS database.
Quoting the family of Eugene Stoner who invented a precursor of the AR-15: "He died long before any mass shootings occurred," the family said. "But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
Horrified? Sure as most everyone is. But this materially incorrect. Mr Stoner invented the AR-10 in 1955. Wikipedia lists 4 mass shootings prior to the AR-10's invention and at least 26 before his death 1997. If you take the government's word for the history of "mass shootings" they often do leave out events like Bloody Island and Sand Creek.
The effect of quoting people (people who ought to be informed) is to lend credibility to an idea. Quoting info that you don't verify only serves to perpetuate those inaccuracies I name in the title of this post, which also detracts from your credibility on the subject...
...or, at least, it should.
Here's a huge incontestable fact. If you're a terrorist or other criminal with mayhem and murder as a goal and you plan on using a gun, an AR-15 isn't more deadly or more effective than many other options. The second deadliest modern mass shooting was at Virginia Tech where the shooter used semi-auto pistols with stock magazines. If a criminal with a gun is seeking to maximize death and injury, the single factor that determines the potential level of carnage is not his choice of weapon but his choice of venue for the attack. Places with large numbers of people removed from the chance of any organized armed response will always be potential deathtraps.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
33 replies, 4173 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (10)
ReplyReply to this post
33 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In that case we need to put ALL the guns down so no one can get hurt by them.
Ford_Prefect
Jun 2016
#1
The right is to bear arms in a state organized militia. It is not and never has been a guarantee
Ford_Prefect
Jun 2016
#3
And if anyone had actually made such a ludicrous argument, *I'd* be the first to argue with them
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#7
"Threatening an old man" with what? Knowledge? You lot always were prone to anti-intellectualism...
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#8
And about that 'old man' remark: I qualify to buy into one of those 'active adult' (gag)
friendly_iconoclast
Jun 2016
#14